linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: don't complete un-started request in timeout handler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170315164631.GA19203@ming.t460p>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:46:35 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "yizhan@...hat.com" <yizhan@...hat.com>,
        "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: don't complete un-started request in timeout
 handler

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:22:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:36:31PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 
> OK, this race should only exist in case that the requeue happens after dispatch
> busy, because COMPLETE flag isn't set. And if the requeue is from io completion,
> no such race because COMPLETE flag is set.
> 
> One solution I thought of is to call blk_mark_rq_complete() before requeuing
> when dispatch busy happened, but that looks a bit silly. Another way is to
> set STARTED flag just after .queue_rq returns BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_OK, which looks
> reasonable too. Any comments on the 2nd solution?

Actually it isn't possible to happen because rq->deadline is just set
in blk_mq_start_request() called from .queue_rq, and it won't trigger
timeout handling even STARTED is observed as true in blk_mq_check_expired()
because timeout period is often set as big enough. So it is still safe, isn't it?

But this situation should have been commented.

Thanks,
Ming